Search

Two members of the FBI’s elite counterterrorism unit died Friday while practicing how to quickly drop from a helicopter to a ship using a rope, the FBI announced Monday in a statement.

The statement gave few details regarding the deaths of Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw, other than to say the helicopter encountered unspecified difficulties and the agents fell a “significant distance.”

A law enforcement source told The Pilot the incident happened about 12 nautical miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. The official blamed bad weather for the incident and said the agents – members of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, based in Quantico – fell into the water. The official said he believed the agents died as a result of the impact rather than drowning.

Glenn McBride, a spokesman for the state medical examiner’s office, said it could be months before his staff can release a final cause and manner of death for the two agents. He said they must wait for the results of routine toxicology tests.

According to a Navy official, the agents were using a ship the FBI had leased from the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. No Navy personnel were involved in the exercise, the Navy official said.

An Army helicopter crashed into a similar ship in 2009 during another training exercise off the coast of Virginia Beach, killing one person and injuring eight.

In interviews Monday, the founder of the Hostage Rescue Team and other former special agents called the unit “elite” while outlining the difficult training exercises members must endure.

“It’s the most rigorous training regiment in law enforcement, probably in the world,” said Danny Coulson, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI who started the team 30 years ago and served as its first commander. “They have to be able to do any mission, at any time.”

Among other things, members of the Hostage Rescue Team are trained to rappel from helicopters, scuba dive and use explosives to break down doors and walls. When needed, the team can deploy within four hours to anywhere in the U.S.

“It sounds risky, and it absolutely is,” Coulson said. “They have the same skill sets as SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force.”

In all, the team has responded to more than 850 incidents involving terrorism, violent crimes and foreign counterintelligence, according to the FBI’s website.

Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. And in February, it rescued a 5-year-old boy held hostage for six days in an underground bunker in Alabama.

Irvin Wells, a former FBI special agent who retired in 1990 after leading the Norfolk field office for three years, stressed that the Hostage Rescue Team is different from the FBI’s regular SWAT teams. He noted that agents assigned to a field office’s SWAT team also must perform other jobs inside the bureau, while agents assigned to the Hostage Rescue Team have no other duties.

“Not to take anything from SWAT, but these guys train full time for the most dangerous of missions,” Wells said of the Hostage Rescue Team. “Like the SEALs, they are highly trained and train continuously.”

Nancy Savage, executive director of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, said SWAT teams handle “normal dangerous situations,” while the Hostage Rescue Team handles larger-scale incidents that involve more specialized skill sets.

“It’s like one level up,” Savage said. “They are a very, very elite team.”

Coulson stressed that it takes more than brute strength to become a member of the Hostage Rescue Team.

“It’s not just biceps and triceps. It requires intellectual muscle, too,” he said.

To join the team, FBI agents must pass a special physical fitness test and complete a two-week selection class, Coulson said. Then, the agent must complete a 14- to 16-week “New Operator Training School.”

“It’s a national loss,” Coulson said about the deaths of Lorek and Shaw. “These are the best-trained individuals in the world.”

For the next few days we will be reproducing a variety of news and opinion on terrorism by libertarians and Objectivists, especially any reasonable, intelligent, witty or humorous offerings. They won’t all be consistent and we won’t all agree with all of them, to the degree we even have a settled view on all particulars. So don’t expect consistency, hobgoblins!

The Libertarian Response to Terrorism

I’ve received several variations of this question since starting my “Question of the Week” series. Having never studied the terrorism issue, I’ve been ignoring those queries.

But I got several new emails on the topic after what happened in Boston, so I’m answering simply to make one point. There’s no way to create a perfectly safe, risk-free society.

That being said – and with the caveat that I have no expertise in this field, here are some random thoughts on the topic.

Libertarians want less interventionism around the world, and perhaps that will reduce hostility against the United States, but some of these nutjobs hate us because of our freedoms. So even a perfect foreign policy (whatever that even is) provides no guarantee we won’t get attacked. That being said, I thinkRon Paul has screwed up big time in some of his criticisms of U.S. actions. Being against nation building does not mean you have to be against killing terrorists.

If you want to cause trouble, find a bunch of young men with no purpose in their lives and lots of time on their hands. Combine that with religious extremists who tell those men that they will get a bunch of virgins* in paradise if they die while killing Westerners, and you have a nontrivial supply of future terrorists. I suspect part of the answer will have to come from within the Islamic community, though I confess that I’m puzzled by the inaction on that front even though one imagines that 99 percent of Muslims don’t support terrorism.

Terrorists and would-be terrorists get information from the Internet that fuels their hate and provides knowledge on how to conduct attacks. I’m rather sympathetic to drone attacks on the scum in the Middle East who are directly seeking to instigate/plan terrorism, but I don’t see any feasible or desirable way to control and/or regulate the Internet (just like I don’t see a feasible or desirable way to regulate video games, even if it was shown that violent games somehow inspired Newtown-type killers).

Close monitoring of pro-terrorist websites and chat rooms is a very legitimate and proper function of law enforcement and the intelligence community. Being a Muslim shouldn’t be a cause for investigation and harassment by the government. Being a Muslim who uses the Internet to visit such sites is a cause for investigation and harassment (and the same is true for members of any other group with a history of violence).

Monitoring of Mosques also is a proper function of government, just as I also have no objection of law enforcement monitoring militia groups, environmental groups, etc, etc. Obviously, the monitoring of any group should be selectively focused on those strains that are believed to espouse violence. I don’t know where you draw the line between freedom of religion and incitement of violence, but I have zero sympathy for radical Imams preaching hate inside the United States and would like to see them shut down/imprisoned/deported if they cross that line.

Yes, I’m disgusted by the leftists in the press who obviously hope for a “right wing” link any time there’s an attack. These are the same journalists, by the way, who weren’t even slightly bothered by Barack Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, a real-life terrorist who bombed the NYC police department, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon.

I favor immigration, but I want people who believe in tolerance and hard work. There should be some sort of test, however imperfect, designed to weed out those who do not believe in assimilation. I’m still flabbergasted that the U.S. government is so bloody incompetent that it gave a green card to the so-called Blink Sheik. Such people should never be let in the country and there should be mechanisms for quick deportation (perhaps halfway across the Atlantic) if they do slip through the net.

P.S. Like anybody with common sense, I want’ our anti-terrorism policies to be based on cost-benefit analysis, which is why I’m generally critical of the Transportation Security Administration.

Addendum: I’m getting lots of comments and emails about this post. In retrospect, I can’t claim to be speaking for libertarians, so perhaps I should have used a title such as “What Are Your Thoughts about How to Deal with Terrorism?” Though I don’t think there’s anything in my views that is inconsistent with libertarianism. Assuming, of course, you’re not an anarcho-capitalist. But even if I was in that camp, I would want to voluntarily contract with a private firm that would hunt down terrorists and kill them. Sort of like the group in the new Tom Clancy novels. By the way, I also like the Vince Flynn novels, so I probably am more bloodthirsty than the average libertarian.

When we dignify terrorists by calling them, or treating them like, “enemy combatants” instead of evil criminals we are making a big mistake. When a “progressive” society denies fundamental moral premises and views morality as “choice” we open Pandora’s Box and risk perverting the naive, both here and abroad.

We erroneously teach that violence doesn’t solve anything. Muslims BELIEVE that violence solves EVERYTHING. WE simple fail to understand Muslim philosophy. Those who would NOT participate in a terrorist attack, UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT the attitude of those who do.

Kill them before they kill an American, or kill them if they are planning on or thinking of killing an American? If you kill them because they are “thinking of killing” or “planning to” kill Americans, how do you know that they would actually do what they are “thinking of or planning on” of doing?

I have never heard any good reason why the U.S. promotes taking students from countries that have prominent terrorist activity. Going back to 9/11, these were students who obviously were not even hiding the fact that they weren’t serious students. The horror is that any type of Isreali-type inspection and followup of these people would have probably stopped 9/11.

If we are going to allow these types of students into our country; the number should be greatly reduced to the number we can effectively follow and monitor.

Otherwise, how does allowing these students in justify the cost of 9/11, the Boston marathon, and what else?

I completely disagree with your reasoning here. America has always taken in refugees whether or not their country has terrorists. Could you imagine if we refused entry to Jews and others fleeing Europe during WWII simply because there was a chance one of them could be a Nazi Spy? Unfortunately in this world the bad often accompany the good. That does not mean we should exclude the good.

You lost all credibility there. The US is not even in the top 10 free nations anymore. There are many more nations that are more free than we are. If they “hate us for our freedom”, then why aren’t these other countries being attacked at least AS OFTEN as we are?

The mass-murdering communist slave-masters of Southeast Asia were quite the opposite of “innocent people.” Look at what happened in Cambodia after we pulled our troops out of Southeast Asia. Applying your logic, would you applaud someone bombing Democrat and or other liberal and leftist targets in the U.S. to try to stop Obama’s military actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

As I’ve said before…If I learned one thing in Afghanistan it is that “nation building” is not buildings, roads, bridges, and government institutions. Nation building is what we failed to do; build an understanding of freedom, individual responsibility, individual rights, equal liberty and opportunity.

Blowing things up, killing many, and leaving them free to elect the muslim Brotherhood as their new government (after we rebuild their country on our dime and update their infrastructure for them) is either a psychotic attempt at humanitarianism, or the worst military plan in all of history.

A proper Libertarian response to terrorism requires an analysis of the our goals, strengths and weaknesses and those of the terrorists.Our goal is to remain free. Their goal is to terrorize us and force us to lose freedom.Our response should be to protect our freedom and refuse to be terrorized. We should not give these men the glorification of evil geniuses or leaders in a war. They should be seen as what they are, not frightening, dangerous and evil, but as stupid, foolish and wrong. Government monitoring of mosques and planning domestic drone attacks simply plays into their hands. We must maintain our freedoms. Ridicule is our most appropriate and effective weapon.

You missed the real issue – big time. The problem is Islam, not radical Islam. The 99% you mention have not and will not report on the 1%. That makes them even more complicit than the 1%. They want a one world caliphate and secretly enjoy what the 1% are doing. They do nothing to stop the destruction of churches and synagogues, the murders of Coptic Christians and Jews. There is no outrage in the Islamic communities. To do nothing in the face of evil is to be evil.P.S. It is substantially more than 1%.

I am an evangelical Christian. I want a one-world government under Jesus. And oddly enough, there is a violent sect of Christians (KKK) whom I fail to castigate on a daily basis. Am I as guilty as the Muslims who believe the same thing?

Waging a war on Islam would mean the genocide of about a billion people. It’s not a government job, it’s a religious one. Pull the armies out, and send the missionarries in.

In this great once blessed nation we have “The Poor”..aka…. folks who work and have no money…And then we have “The Lazy” aka… folks who refuse to work but insist they are poor so as to continue to mooch off those who do work…. To help the poor is a personal responsibility and NOT the governments’ responsibility…. As for the lazy give them nothing…. Government does not have to be compassionate People Do….. All government is responsible for is to protect my Rights to LIFE,LIBERTYand a Pursuit of happiness …

The job of government has nothing to do with compassion. The job of government is to keep you from hurting me or vice versa. It’s also to keep others from hurting either or both of us. That’s it. Everything compassionate is for religious and humanitarian groups. Not the government.

You confuse government with politicians. Government may not have to be compassionate, but politicians can use government policy and taxpayer dollars to buy votes from the lazy–politicians job is to get reelected and keep their perqs.

Heart, show us some compassionate government, first. “We’ll get them naggers voting democrat for the next 100 years,” (LBJ) is compassionate? Dumbing down the education to eliminate critical thinking so future voters are taught to be victims and to covet they neighbour’s goods is a mark of compassion?Please tell me where the compassion is in government intrusion?

“One imagines that 99 percent of Muslims don’t support terrorism.” Exactly who was that dancing in the streets after the 9/11 attack? And where were the “99%” protesting the attack? I’m afraid the percentage is much, much higher.

One need not be an expert to Google readily available poll results. Those polls indicate that about a third of Muslims in Muslim countries support terrorism, another third support the goals but not the terrorism, and the remaining third don’t support the terrorism or the goals. A poll of Muslims IN GREAT BRITAIN showed that 6% fully supported the 2005 London Underground terror bombing with another 20% having sympathy for the “feelings and motives” of those who carried out the bombing.

“Being against nation building does not mean you have to be against killing terrorists”-Yes, but that doesn’t mean:

1) We need to have 800+ bases in 120+ nations around the world & be a self appointed “policemen of the world” at our expense2) We need to invade nations3) It’s OK to use drone strikes that often kill more innocent bystanders than terrorists4) We all have to live in a Police State where we are all basically guilty until proven innocent, no search warrants are needed & the state has the power to ignored our God given, Constitutionally protected rights5) The President can indefinitely jail, or ordered killed people based on suspicion only without a trial

I like the idea of waterboarding rightwingers, better. Then, put the rightwingers into a steamy, unventilated room for a couple of hours and suddenly drench them with ice-cold water coming from a hydrant; then put them in a refrigerated room for an hour until their body temperatures drops to 94,, then put them back in the steamy, unventilated room. Repeat the cycle eight to ten times.

When the right-wingers finally talk and confess who made the bombs, confiscate and liquidate all the wealth of the right-wing conspirators and distribute it to the families of the Sandy Hook victims.

Works for me!

Mark

(The author is an Internet troll and member of Democratic Socialist of America and reflective of his co-religionists.)